The court examined the small number of Canadian cases where courts accepted the possibility of claims of malicious prosecution
against professional regulatory bodies, as well as the English case of Gregory v. Portsmouth City Council, [2000] UKHL 3, [2000] 1 AC 419, where Lord Steyn concluded that the claim does not extend to disciplinary proceedings.
Not exact matches
The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Laffin v. Association of
Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 846 provides a sober reminder to professional regulatory bodies that in assessing applicants for registration, they are confined to assessing applications against the particular requirements set out in their enabling statutes
Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 846 provides a sober reminder to
professional regulatory bodies that in assessing applicants for registration, they are confined to assessing applications against the particular requirements set out in their enabling statutes
professional regulatory bodies that in assessing applicants for registration, they are confined to assessing applications
against the particular requirements set out in their enabling statutes and bylaws.
Where an investigator for a
regulatory body sends emails to two complainants who have alleged fraud
against a member, the investigator may be protected from a claim for «defamation» arising from the content of his emails (e.g., where he confirms to the recipients that the
body is prosecuting the member for
professional [mis] conduct for the fact that he recklessly [carried out certain conduct]»), based on the defence of «absolute privilege».